On Friday 6 June 2008 1:42:50 Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I'd argue that the action of coming to have the same name or nickname > as another rule-defined entity is what's impossible, so in this case > Rule 9991 would fail to take effect when the proposal to create it > passed (assuming they were created in order with the text shown).
There is, I think, a precedent somewhere to the effect that a state of affairs can remain in place even when it can no longer come into being. Something involving holding an office, or perhaps MwoP. So it would be unreasonable to interpret "CANNOT have" as synonymous with "CANNOT come to have". Pavitra
